Site Section Links
KRONOS Vol X, No. 1
SATURN: IN MYTH AND RELIGION
Copyright (c) 1983/1984 by Dwardu Cardona
In their book, The Cosmic Serpent, Victor Clube and Bill Napier alluded to the Sun, the Moon, and Venus as a ''trilogy''(1) when it is obvious they meant "trinity". I'm not certain what this says for their mythological expertise but it is not a reassuring indication. Even had they used the word "trinity", it would still have been incorrect.
While it is true that, generally speaking, "trinity" merely means "a group of three", this definition falls short when used in a religious and/or mythological context. Theologically, "trinity" means "three persons in one godhead" - that is, three persons who, while retaining their individuality, are in essence one and the same divinity. Sun, Moon, and Venus cannot therefore form a trinity even though conventional mythologists sometimes refer to them as such. That is their carelessness. The term these authors should have used is "triad".
Trinities aren't just made up. In mytho-religious studies, we have to accept them as found. Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu form such a trinity, referred to by the Hindus themselves as the trimurti.(2) Today, the most famous trinity in the Western World is that of the Christian faith: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost or Spirit.
We cannot pick deities, like numbers, out of a hat and decide that they form trinities - or triads for that matter. Unless believed in as such by the adherents of the relative faiths, all trinities are false.<"center">2. Saturnian Deities/p>
The correct identification of planetary deities rests on direct evidence and/or comparative mythology. In other words, such identifications are not a matter of personal choice but are either offered by the ancients themselves or dictated by the content of myth. It will not do to decide that such and such a god must have personified such and such a planet simply because the cosmological model one adheres to seems to demand it. Nor will it do to fling these identifications on the page without offering a single shred of corroborative evidence. With so many different cosmic scenarios going around these days, such irresponsible equations can only lead to confusion.
In some of my recent papers, I have re-identified various deities as personifications of the planet Saturn. My readers may be beginning to think that I see Saturn lurking behind every god and goddess of myth. At the risk of sounding trite, let me state that it was not I who composed the myths. It is therefore none of my doing if these are replete with Saturnian deities.
There are various reasons for this multitude of Saturnian divinities. As I have often pointed out in my writings, Saturn was the original god of humankind. There was a time, from before the Golden Age, when he actually ruled alone.(3) Nor was his reign a transient event, for he seems to have existed in Earth's sky for thousands of years.
As I outlined several years ago,(4) and as David Talbott has now shown,(5) the primeval Saturn presented a multifarious appearance. Physically and visually, the luminary was composed of various components - orb, rings, axis - which changed cyclically throughout the Saturnian day and also evolved throughout the length of the Saturnian era.
As a unified entity, the Saturnian All Father received different names by different races. But different aspects of him - orb, rings, and axis - were also assigned individual names. Besides all this, to some he was male, to others female. In time he became both.(6)
Saturn's history was one of periodic disruptions.(7) Following every such event, he seems to have reappeared in a slightly altered form. Each "new" Saturn was thus honored with a new name. It is for this reason that Saturn was considered to have been the son and/or father of himself.(8) A similar belief continues down to the present day among Christians for is not Jesus, as god, his own son?
Saturnian names owe a portion of their multiplicity to these primeval events. Others came about, both then and later, as titles, epithets, and appellations. Concerning the Egyptian deities, William Mullen wrote:
As time went by, the ancestral memory of these events dimmed. In Egypt, the sacral litanies continued to be chanted even when a full understanding of their content was partially lost. Eventually, even the identities of the gods were forgotten; and were it not for the present day rediscoveries of ancient texts, we would be in no better position. In Egypt, a time came when not only were planetary deities worshipped under different names in different places, but also in the very same nomes under the roof of the very same temples.
When one remembers that this devolutionary process took place, not only in Egypt, but throughout the entire world, one begins to appreciate the complexity of the myths and the reason behind the legion of names which now burden the original god of humankind.
"It has been estimated that a list of Sumerian deities [alone] would contain more than five thousand names."(10) I am willing to wager that an in-depth analysis would disclose that by far the greater majority of them are of Saturnian origin - as are those of other races. By comparison, the number of the other planetary deities pales to near insignificance; not because there are so few of them, but because there are so many more Saturnian ones.
Velikovskian scholars might feel uncomfortable with the number of Saturnian deities that have recently been introduced into the field, but I can assure them that they have seen nothing yet.
In an earlier paper, I indicated a certain amount of confusion that seems to have existed between Saturn and Mars. The constellations of the Pleiades and Orion, for instance, are connected by tradition to both of these two planets.(11) Originally, I explained the reason behind this confusion through the following process:
Although I would not, today, alter the above scenario, I do wish to revoke it as the reason behind the Mars-Saturn confusion. Continuing research now indicates that the first appearance of Mars in Earth's sky occurred in such close proximity to Saturn that the ancients actually believed it to have been spawned by the giant "planet" or its encircling rings. Following this event, Mars seems to have spent a portion of its early career in the vicinity of Saturn and may even have constituted a satellite of the giant. Mars thus formed part of the Saturnian configuration and was therefore endowed by the ancients with some of its progenitor's characteristics.(13) Under these conditions, it now becomes obvious that the ancients could not have confused the two bodies. The confusion seems to be only in our minds since the original Pleiades, which were Saturn's rings,(14) and Orion, who originally was Saturn,(15) were legitimately, and not confusedly, connected with Mars.
Jupiter's Saturnian characteristics came about in a similar manner. Having, at the end of the Golden Age, taken over from Saturn as king of the gods, he was bound to acquire, together with Saturn's sceptre, those royal aspects which had formerly belonged to his deposed predecessor. Since, later, Jupiter also became surrounded with rings, it was even believed that he actually stole some of his father's attributes.
But even this is not the entire story. I also wrote that:
David Talbott not only described the "creation" of the constellations in similar terms but explained the attribution of Saturnian traits to the rest of the cosmos as well. Thus he wrote:
He might as well have included the rest of the members of the Solar System with the Sun and Moon, for it now seems certain that all of the planets visible to the naked eye were honored with "some special quality" of their past Saturnian king. That aspect of Saturn which had once been seen as female passed on to Venus.(19) Saturn's war-like nature was inherited by Mars.(20) His royalty among the planetary gods together with his role as dispenser of justice was shouldered by Jupiter.(21) Even Mercury became imbued with Saturnian attributes.(22) Yet, while we find that each planetary deity retained one or some of these Saturnian characteristics, it will be found that only Saturn had once possessed them all. And therein lies one of the most important clues for the correct identification of Saturnian deities.
That all of this makes the interpretation of myth that much more difficult cannot be helped. But it can perhaps be now understood why our search should be for origins - for only by tracing this intricate maze from its beginning can we ever hope to arrive unerringly at its logical end.
Like planetary identifications, cosmologies must be based on the content of myth. The myths, moreover, must be correctly read. Because of our present limited knowledge, it is understandable that, temporarily, certain items of myth will have to remain cosmologically unaccounted for. Hopefully, this will not be for long.
On the other hand, it is not desirable to burden cosmologies with details that are not contained in myth. Thus, for instance, I am still uncertain what the references to "black Saturn" allude to,(23) but it would be unscholarly of me to try and force these allusions into a wild scenario. Conversely - as another "for instance" - it will not do for Lynn Rose to present the primeval Saturn as having displayed sunlit phases simply because the model he constructed demands it.(24) Since the ancient texts at our disposal do not seem to report such a phase effect, it can safely be assumed that no such effect was visible. If Rose's model truly demands this effect, something must be wrong with the model.
b>5. Saturn's Immobility
The Saturnian scenario that has thus far emerged presents Saturn in a rotating but fixed position directly above Earth's north polar region. In other words, Saturn neither rose nor set; the "planet" simply "sat" there, looming large and ominous.
What this implies is that the Earth shared the same axis of rotation with Saturn. This has to be stressed because the totality of the mythological record allows for no other interpretation.
That quite a few catastrophists have rejected this idea is not to be wondered at - the very notion of it inspires disbelief. Even Talbott came near to deriding his own model and would not consider defending it from a physical point of view.(25)
Rose circumvented this problem by having the Earth revolve around Saturn with its axis perpendicular to the path of its orbit.(26) Without a doubt, this makes for a more stable system but, unfortunately, it does not meet the requirements of the mythological record.
In Rose's model, one hemisphere of the Earth is presented in perpetual phase-lock with Saturn; but it is not the northern hemisphere upon which the myths insist.
Rose believes that Saturn's connection with the north is due to a "garbling" of the account. "The Saturn myths no more pertain to the north", he wrote, "than do the Venus and Mars myths pertain to the Sun."(27) Myth does not, however, equate Venus and Mars with the Sun; only some mythologists do. On the other hand, most mythologists do not place Saturn in the north; but myth does.
Saturn's immobility is indicated when Ra is lauded as the god "who resteth on his high place".(28) Osiris/Saturn was also "exalted upon his resting place".(29) That this immobility really refers to Saturn is evidenced by one of Saturn's Hebrew names - Kokab Sabet, which means the Rest[ing] star (or planet).(30)
Actually, Talbott believes that Saturn did wander for a time before the luminary became fixed in the north celestial pole. Thus, in a synopsis of his scenario, he wrote:
In his major work, he did not go into this in any detail, apparently being satisfied by mentioning that "in the beginning the god [i.e., Saturn] wandered without a stable support."(32)
Personally, I do not know what sources Talbott had in mind when he suggested this former wandering of Saturn. As far as I can determine, the Saturnian deity seems to have been fixed in his place from as far back as humankind can remember.
6. The Ringed Cross
At some point in its celestial career, Saturn ensconced itself within a system of rings. These were not the rings which presently encircle the planet. If I read the myths correctly, there was first one ring which later split into three and finally evolved into a sevenfold structure. In his major work, Talbott described only one Saturnian ring or band. He did refer to the seven rings surrounding Saturn in his earlier synopsis but, according to him, these were formed after Saturn's "fall", at the end of the Golden Age.(33) I disagree with Talbott on this point, having come across numerous references which seem to indicate that the seven rings were unfolded in prismatic glory during the greater part of the Golden Age.
Because of Earth's rotation, the sunlit portion of these rings were seen to revolve daily around the Saturnian orb. Saturn's own light would actually have illuminated the entire ring structure, but the luminary itself would still have blocked the solar rays from reaching that portion of the rings which faced away from the Sun. Thus the entire ring system would have been lit, but the sunlit portion would have presented a brighter crescent. It was this gigantic crescent which lent Saturn its horned image and won for itself the epithet of Bull of Heaven.(34)
Talbott has also posited four cruciform rays as emanating from Saturn's body. What these rays were and what held them in position is still something of a mystery. To an extent, so are the so-called spokes which presently radiate from Saturn and cross its vast system of rings. Mysteries, however, do not negate the existence of the phenomena that cause them.
What is important in this connection is the fact that myth does describe these cruciform rays or crossed extremities. Among other fanciful things, they were visualized by the ancients as a quadrifurcate river system.(35) There might or might not be a connection between them and the present Saturnian spokes. But just as the one phenomenon exists today, so, it seems, did a more prominent prototype exist in primeval times.
7. The Ennead
Talbott described Saturn as "the god [who] stood at the stationary cosmic center, imparting movement to the celestial bodies which revolved about him".(36) Saturn's north celestial polar position was identical to that of the present pole star. Thus, had they been visible, the stars would have appeared to revolve around Saturn. When Talbott wrote the above, however, he had neither stars nor planets in mind. Some of the celestial bodies which did appear to revolve around Saturn, of course, were the rings-in-crescent whose apparent motion was imparted to them by the Earth's rotation. But there was more.
In order to understand what "celestial bodies" Talbott had in mind, we have to look at the synopsis of his overall scheme which he had published in 1977. There, Talbott wrote of "seven satellites [which] circled inside [Saturn's] bands".(37) It was, according to him, the debris from these seven satellites which, having disintegrated at the end of the Golden Age, formed the seven bands around the Saturnian orb.(38)
I do not wish to confuse the issue at this early date but, as I aim to document at some future time, the Saturnian satellites seem to have numbered nine rather than seven. Although this is a detail concerning which either of us could be wrong, some of the sources at my disposal speak of the seven bands and nine satellites as having coexisted during the Golden Age. Other sources indicate that these nine satellites were the prototype of the Ennead of gods celebrated in myth.
8. The World Mountain
The mythologies of almost all races mention what could best be described as a World Mountain. Of imposing dimensions, this Mountain was said to have been situated at the north pole. It loomed so high that it was believed to have acted as a support for heaven. Above it rested the Saturnian deity.
Some mythologists have confusedly fixed this World Mountain in the east, sometimes in the west. Lenormant sought a compromise between the north and the east. Thus he wrote: "The mountain which acted as a pivot to the starry [sic] heavens was to the northeast."(39) Laden beneath their uniformitarian burdens, these mythologists could not conceive of Saturn having once radiated as a veritable sun, despite the fact that texts explicitly state this to have been the case. Thus, when the Mesopotamians spoke of the Mountain as the place where Shamash "came out", the translators could not help but render the phrase as "where the sun rises" - which to us, today, is the east. But that Shamash was Saturn, rather than the Sun, should by now have been accepted, especially since this was the belief of the ancients themselves.(40) So, also, with other Saturnian deities which have been misidentified as the Sun - such as Ra, Helios, Surya, and Baal.
Such phrases as "coming forth" and "going out" were translated as "rising" and "setting" because the translators had no other explanation at their disposal. But unless the Mountain moved, which of course the texts do not imply, it could not have conformed to this misinterpretation for it was explicitly written that the Mountain on which the god "came forth" was the same one over which he "went in".(41) As Talbott has already shown, the "coming forth" and "going in" of the primeval sun referred to the brightening and dimming of the Saturnian configuration through the cycle of day and night. In the absence of the Sun, Saturn brightened; in the presence of the Sun, it dimmed. But, throughout the Golden Age, it never left the Mountain on top of which it seemed to be perched.
Some years ago, I presented the World Mountain as simply that. I took the ancients at their word and envisaged an actual massif located at the top of the world. I referred to this mountain, but only in passing, as a lithic bulge.(42) This hypothesis has not yet been analyzed and, while I am not ready to discard it, I must caution other researchers that the notion of a tidal distortion of the lithosphere in response to Saturn's gravity at close quarters - as similarly proffered by Rose(43) is not itself without difficulty.
The Egyptian Atum, who was also Saturn,(44) is made to utter some very significant words:
Presumably, it was this and similar utterances which prompted Talbott to posit a former wandering of Saturn prior to the luminary's settlement in a fixed position. It should, however, be pointed out that the texts do not state that Atum had been wandering. As Talbott himself also realized, what these myths of Atum refer to is a time before the appearance or formation of the World Mountain and/or Axis Mundi.(46) And it is precisely in this that we find the true meaning of Saturn as the resting god. Saturn was immobile because the luminary did not move from its central position in Earth's north polar sky; it was at rest because it appeared to have perched itself atop the newly formed Axis.
b>9. The Axis Mundi
Perhaps the most intriguing single feature of the Saturnian configuration was the Axis Mundi. According to what can be culled from ancient sources, this Axis appeared as a single "ray", or bright appendage, which stretched all the way from Earth's northern horizon to the Saturnian sun of night.
To Talbott, the Axis and the World Mountain are one and the same phenomenon.(47) In other words, Talbott does not believe the Mountain to have been a physical uplift of land but, rather, a metaphorical rendering of this tapering swath of light. The truth is that the sources are somewhat ambiguous on this point. Definitely, Mount and Axis are often spoken of as one and the same phenomenon but, just as definitely, they are often referred to as independent manifestations. This argument is much too complex to be indulged in at this point but, for whatever it is worth, my own position tentatively favors separate phenomena. I do, however, reserve the right to change my opinion if and when the evidence should demand it.
What we can be certain of is that the Axis existed. The ancients were too preoccupied with it for it to have been a figment of their imagination. But what was this Axis Mundi, this pillar of heaven, this stairway to the gods?
Other than repeating what the ancient Egyptians believed - that this singular ray erupted from the creator's own body(48) - Talbott supplied no explanation. According to Rose, the Axis could be compared "to the recently discovered 'flux tube' joining Jupiter and Io"(49) an idea that was first suggested by Richard Smith in March of 1979.(50) Rose also wrote:
This idea of a connecting atmosphere, bizarre as it may sound, is not entirely without merit. A similar idea had earlier been suggested by Frederic Jueneman. In fact, Jueneman supplied more than that, for to him do I owe the most viable mechanical model to date which can be made to account for the reality of the Axis Mundi.
Like Saturn itself, the Axis was known under a multitude of names. It was described under the guise of various magical phenomena - especially at that time when its true nature must have long been forgotten. Among its many fanciful images, it turned up in India as the churning stick of the Hindu gods. What must be stressed here is that a churning stick churns. The mythology of the Axis, in fact, is consistent on two very significant points - the Axis joined Saturn to Earth (which is why it was said that the Saturnian deity was the only one who ever walked on Earth); and it rotated, i.e., it churned. Collected from a variety of sources much too numerous to reference here, comes this image of the Axis Mundi: That of a massive cyclone that churned, and spun, and danced constantly in the north.
As already stated, Jueneman has proffered a working hypothesis which envisages this planetary cyclone as an enormous Rankine vortex, a columnar tornado nestled within another. At times, a bolus flow was also displayed in the shape of two thinner and snake-like conduits entwined in opposite direction around the cyclone's main trunk.(52) The cyclone would have been cylindrical in form, but perspective would have presented it as an upward-pointing cone of streamlined appearance. In this image one can recognize the prototype of the caduceus(53) as also the goddess with flounced skirt holding a writhing snake in each hand.
The detailed workings of this ingenious model, now in my possession for many years, have yet to be published. The model will have to be studied and analyzed by others before it can be accepted. There are, however, three properties in its favor: It is simple, it explains much, and it conforms to the message of myth.
To the ancients, the Axis was the parent of all cyclones, hurricanes, and whirlwinds. Seen from a safe distance, it presented a rather peaceful and beautiful image, a gentility that resonated with a soft electrical hum that soothed.(54) This was the ruach of Genesis;(55) the hurakan of the Americas.(56) But there were occasions when the Axis, due to the Earth's wobbling, went awry. Then it turned into a terrible vortex of great destruction, an uproarious vorticity that knew no quelling. It became then the feared abubu of the Assyro-Babylonians;(57) the destructive dance of Shiva's terrible tandava.(58)
It was during these rare, but periodic, events that the great carnages in the northern regions of the world occurred. It was this terrible cyclonic tempest that was responsible for the slaughter of the mammoths and other beasts, the jumbled and mangled remains of which can still be seen in the Siberian Islands and Alaska. It was this colossal maelstrom that uprooted the trees of those regions and flung them, broken and twisted, to mingle with the torn carcasses of mammoths, bison, and horses. Moreover, man was a witness to at least one of these destructions and he had it recorded in at least one source.(59)
This Axis was also the trunk of the Cosmic Tree - with Saturn's rings-in-crescent forming the branches - that Mars was later to sever.(60) With its severance came the deluge - or at least one of them - and also Saturn's snow. (61) Mammoths, trees, and jumbled terrain were frozen on the spot.
That, in brief, is the Saturnian scenario which is slowly but steadily gaining acceptance. It is what the totality of the mythic record dictates. The detailed evidence of this model, only a little of which has so far been published,(62) is much too voluminous ever to be contained within the pages of this periodical. The chronological sequence to the formation and eventual destruction of the Saturnian configuration is a stunning drama, the documentation of which calls for an entire series of in-depth studies.
Up to now, most of these findings have been presented in skeletal sketches without being accounted for from a physical point of view. Talbott's main concern was stated to be the proper interpretation of myth.(63) To a large extent, this he has done. So far, my own has mainly centered on the dissipation of false contentions, mistaken interpretations, and erroneous planetary identifications.
Velikovsky's prime interest revolved around his reconstruction of ancient history. It is almost certain that had he had the time to probe deeper into the Saturnian phenomena, he would have come to better grips with this most fascinating of subjects.
Bizarre as the Saturnian scenario might seem at present, it is not more so than various astronomical and astrophysical ones now in vogue. Who, prior to 1610, would have believed that a planet could be surrounded by a thin flat circlet of light - a circular ray? Is a circular ray any more bizarre than a tapering one emanating from the same planet? Who would have believed the existence of similar rays around Jupiter and Uranus had they been predicted prior to their discovery? Who took Vsekhsvyatskii seriously when he did predict the circlet around Jupiter? Who would have believed the invisible but tremendously powerful magnetospheres around Jupiter, Saturn, and the Sun? Would not these properties have seemed bizarre before astronomers and astrophysicists pronounced them as facts? Until 1803, astronomers did not even want to believe that stones could fall from the sky. Who, then, would have accepted that swarms of these irregular chunks orbit the Sun between the planets? If theories can be formulated to account for orbit-sharing satellites, why can't others be propounded to explain the sharing of rotational axes? How much of what we thought we knew about the heavens turned out to be myth? What stops myth from turning out to be fact?
In recent years we have been entertained by descriptions of a sun that sets horizontally; by dramatizations of stars that merge into each other, becoming a single brilliance possessing two cores, only to separate again and repeat the process; by diagrams depicting streams of high-speed gas issuing, like powerful beams of light, from opposite sides of the same star - and if this can be, then why not one such stream, from one side of a star, an axis mundi?
What could be more bizarre than a black hole in space which devours everything within its far-reaching embrace, including the force of gravity, and gives nothing in return?
No one has ever witnessed these cosmic events or viewed the phenomena that cause them. Their existence is merely theorized on the basis of other theoretical assumptions. But, if we believe the ancients, the Saturnian configuration was more than merely viewed by our forefathers. They lived - for long ages - beneath its benevolence and its malignity, as its nature and the effects it caused changed from peaceful harmony to chaotic destruction. In as much as they could understand what was happening above the Earth, they attempted to convey this to those who came later - those who were not themselves witnesses to the events. We weren't there. How, then, do we dare assume that what they claimed to have transpired never did?
What must be remembered is that, to primitive man, the planets were gods. What the planets did was therefore described as the actions and deeds of the gods. As time went by, some began to understand that the gods were really planets. It is through these later peoples that we can now identify the planetary gods. What they claimed of their gods, we can now claim of the planets. But the complete transcription of the mythological record into a viable mechanical model is not as easy as some researchers seem to assume. Make no mistake about it, this chore is one that will occupy interested parties for decades to come.
REFERENCES1. V. Clube & B. Napier, The Cosmic Serpent (London, 1982), p. 163; but see also p.164 where Anahit is referred to as a member of a "trilogy".
2. D. Cardona, "Child of Saturn," Part II, KRONOS VII:2 (Winter 1982), p. 33.
3. H. Tresman & B. O'Gheoghan, "The Primordial Light?" SIS Review II:2 (Dec. 1977), p. 36.
4. D. Cardona, "The Mystery of the Pleiades," KRONOS III:4 (Summer 1978), pp. 37-40.
5. D. N. Talbott, The Saturn Myth (N. Y., 1980), in toto.
6. D. Cardona, "Child of Saturn," Part III, KRONOS VII:3 (Spring 1982), pp. 8-10.
7. Idem, "The Mystery of the Pleiades" (see ref. 4); Idem, "Saturn's Flare-Ups," SIS Workshop 5:1 (April 1983), pp. 8-9.
8. Idem, "Vishnu Born of Shiva," KRONOS VII:3 (Spring 1982), pp. 17-18;Idem, "Child of Saturn," Part IV, KRONOS VIII:4 (Summer 1983), p. 6.
9. W. Mullen, "A Reading of the Pyramid Texts," Pensee IVR III (Winter 1973), p. 13.
10. F. G. Bratton, Myths and Legends of the Ancient Near East (N. Y., 1970), p. 21 (emphasis added).
11. D. Cardona, "The Mystery of the Pleiades" (see ref. 4), pp. 34-37, 40.
12. Ibid., p. 40.
13. Idem, "Indra," KRONOS VII:3 (Spring 1982), pp. 20-21.
14. Idem, "The Mystery of the Pleiades" (see ref. 4), pp. 38-39.
15. Ibid., p.31.
16. Ibid., p.39.
18. D. N. Talbott, op. cit., p. 331.
19. D. Cardona, "Child of Saturn," Part III (see ref. 6), pp. 8-11; Idem, "The Ankh," in Ibid., pp. 32-33.
20. That Saturn had once also been a war god, see the myths pertaining to Ninurta. On the other hand, it must also be stated that Mars as war god derived from that planet's early "antagonism" toward Saturn.
21. D. Cardona, "Jupiter - God of Abraham," Part II, KRONOS VII:2 (Winter 1982), p.46.
22. D. N. Talbott, op. cit., p. 59.
23. D. Cardona, "Child of Saturn," Part III (see ref. 6), p. 8.
24. L. E. Rose, "Variations on a Theme of Philolaos," KRONOS V: 1 (Fall 1979), pp. 26, 34-35, 43-45.
25. D. N. Talbott in J. Gibson, "Saturn's Age," Research Communications Network Newsletter 3 (Oct. 15,1977), p. 4.
26. L. E. Rose, op. cit., pp. 26 ff.
27. Ibid., p. 30.
28. E. A. W. Budge, From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt (London, 1934), p. 394 (emphasis added).
29. D. N. Talbott, The Saturn Myth, p. 50 (emphasis added).
30. R. R. Stieglitz, "The Hebrew Names of the Seven Planets," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 40:2 (April 1980).
31. D. Talbott in J. Gibson (see ref. 25), p. 3.
32. Idem, The Saturn Myth, p. 174 (emphasis as given).
33. Idem, "Saturn: Universal Monarch and Dying God," Research Communications Network (1977 special publication), pp. 10-11.
34. E. A. W. Budge, The Gods of the Egyptians, Vol.2 (London, 1904/1969), pp. 302-303.
35. D. N. Talbott, The Saturn Myth, pp. 120 ff.
36. Ibid., pp. 45-46 (emphasis added) and elsewhere in the same work.
37. Idem, "Saturn: Universal Monarch and Dying God," p. 8 (emphasis added).
38. Ibid., pp. 9, 10.
39. F. Lenormant, Chaldean Magic (London, 1878), p. 152.
40. D. Cardona, "The Sun of Night," KRONOS III:1 (Fall 1977), pp. 33-34 where other sources are cited.
41. D. N. Talbott, The Saturn Myth, p. 186.
42. D. Cardona, "Let There Be Light," KRONOS III:3 (Spring 1978), p. 52.
43. L. E. Rose, op. cit., pp. 39-40.
44. W. Mullen, op. cit., p. 14.
45. R. T. R. Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt (N. Y., 1959), p. 46.
46. D. N. Talbott, op. cit., p. 175.
47. Ibid., pp. 172-227.
48. Ibid, p. 177.
49. L. E. Rose,op. cit., pp. 37-38.
50. R. M. Smith to L. M. Greenberg, March 22, 1979, private communique.
51. L. E. Rose, op. cit., p. 40.
52. This model was proposed and expounded by F. B. Jueneman in a series of private communiques to the author during the 1970s and presented at San Jose in 1980.
53. Refer, for instance, to D. Cardona, "Humbaba," KRONOS IX:2 (Winter 1984), p. 8.
54. F. B. Jueneman to D. Cardona (see ref. 52).
55. Genesis 1:2.
56. On this subject, the author intends to write elsewhere.
57. I. Donnelly, Atlantis: The Antediluvian World (N. Y., 1949 modern revised ed. of the 1882 original), pp. 63, 65-66.
58. V. Ions, Indian Mythology (London, 1967), p. 44.
59. Mahabharata 1:15:5-13; 1:16:1-40; 1:17:1-30.
60. All this was already implied in D. Cardona, "The Mystery of the Pleiades," pp. 38-40.
61. Idem, "Required Research for a Viable Saturnian Scenario," read at the Haliburton seminar sponsored by the Canadian Society for interdisciplinary Studies, Sept. 4, 1983.
62. And that includes Talbott's major work, The Saturn Myth.
63. D. N. Talbott in J. Gibson, "Saturn's Age," p. 4.